¿QCI? (¿Qué comió Ishtar?) Tortas hechas para la Reina del Cielo: Jeremías 7 en Contexto Parte 2

iishtdr001p1

Thanks so much to my English readers for being so understanding about receiving Spanish translations in the mail from time to time – this allows me to reach 10% of the readers in the world instead of only 5%. I pray someday to have a committed Spanish blog but that will be a long time away 🙂

Gracias a Lisa Velazquez por traducir este articulo. Puede escucharla a traves de Teshuva.tv los Domingos a las 6pm en el programa radial: Caminando en Obediencia.

Por lo tanto, esto no era lo que estaba estudiando. Yo estaba buscando el culto a Moloc desde el punto de vista del Culto Imperial y la prostitución de culto a la luz de la parashá de esta semana – y luego me topé con esto por accidente. Y era demasiado prometedor, no para cavar explorar y compartir.

“Oh Istar, diosa misericordiosa, he venido a visitarte. Te he preparado una ofrenda, la leche pura, una torta cocida en cenizas (kamanu tumri), me he puesto de pie para ser un recipiente para tus libaciones, escúchame y actúa favorablemente hacia mí. “- Un himno de Ishtar (ha habido muchos himnos diferentes conservados), citado en Ackerman.

¿Qué es kamanu tumri? Es un pan sin levadura fino hecho de harina y cocido en cenizas – literalmente una “torta de ceniza” (en comparación con el pan hecho en un horno formal, el pan tumru se hace a toda prisa). De hecho, todavía los árabes lo hacen en nuestros días. (1) ¿Qué es un pastel puro? Creo al llamársele una “torta pura” probablemente sería un reflejo del hecho de que no había tenido tiempo de leudarse.

No inmediatamente un un elemento de cambio hasta que nos fijamos en Jeremías 7:18:

¡Los hijos recogen la madera, los padres encienden el fuego, las mujeres amasan la masa para hacer tortas (kawwanim) a la reina del cielo; y, sólo para provocarme, ellos derraman ofrendas de bebida a otros dioses! (2)

Kawwanim es una palabra de anticipo derivada de la palabra acadia kamanu (3) y el único otro lugar en la Escritura en el que la vemos es Jeremías 44:19:

[Entonces las esposas añadieron,] “¿Somos nosotras las que ofrecemos incienso a la reina del cielo? ¿Derramamos libación a ella? ¿Acaso le hicimos tortas marcadas con su imagen para ella y derramamos libación a ella sin nuestros esposos?” (4)

En el contexto Jeremías 44 se refiere al retorno de los judíos a la adoración de la Reina del Cielo, ya que se consideraron que habían sido maldecidos por haberla abandonado. Volviendo a la primera cita del Himno de Ishtar, la única razón por la cual el himnito ofrecía leche, pasteles y vino era con el fin de ser oído y bendecido.

ishtar owl

Note la frase única en Jeremías 44:19 – marcadas con su imagen – l’ha’asibah. El único otro lugar en el que vemos en las Escrituras es cuando Job está hablando de ser formado por las propias manos de Dios en Job 10:8. Así que vemos pan sin levadura, harina, pasteles finos delgados ya sea formados a la imagen de Ishtar o que llevaban su marca. Su “marca” o la forma moldeada, como sabemos por los abundantes hallazgos arqueológicos (incluyendo todo su templo excavado en Nínive y un gran número de tabletas que nos da una increíble riqueza de conocimiento sobre su culto – demontres, ¡incluso sabemos que sus sacerdotes eran travestis!), habría sido una de cuatro cosas posibles – la estrella de ocho puntas, el león, el búho, o tal vez estaban moldeadas en la forma de su cuerpo que de alguna manera ella era una especie única de diosa de la fertilidad sin ser una diosa madre (diosa de los almacenes y de las prostitutas, como si tuviese un trabajo de día y un trabajo de noche).

Entonces, ¿qué comió Ishtar? Tortas delgadas, de flor de harina, sin levadura modeladas o estampadas con su símbolo – combinadas con una buena copa de Chianti. (Está bien, probablemente no era Chianti)

¿Quiere esto decir que el pan sin levadura es de alguna manera pagano? ¿O el vino derramado sobre el altar? Por supuesto que no – no más que la carne, pan leudado, miel, sal, leche y otros alimentos. El pan sin levadura es simplemente pan hecho sin esperar a que el proceso de fermentación ocurra, que en la antigüedad era un proceso largo y complicado.

Al final, una ofrenda pagana requiere un objetivo e intención paganos. La forma y función de trabajar contiguos para el propósito específico de acercarse a otra deidad. Nada de lo ofrecido a los dioses paganos era, de por sí, pagano – pero moldearlo o estampar una torta sin levadura plana con la imagen de Ishtar y luego intencionalmente ofrecerlo a ella, eso Sí, es pagano. El contexto y la intención cambian todo – y sobre todo cambia la forma en que leemos e interpretamos la Biblia.

Biografía y Fuentes de Referencia

(1) Barrows, E. P., The Manners and Customs of the Jews: pg 99; also Luzac’s Semitic Texts and Translation Series, Vol. 15, The Devils and Evil Spirits in Babylonia, p 19

(2) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Je 7:18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(3) Ackerman, Susan, “And the Women Knead Dough: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth Century Judah” in Bach, Alice, Women in the Hebrew Bible (1999) pp 21-32

(4) The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Je 44:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.




WWIE? (What Would Ishtar Eat?) Baking Cakes for the Queen of Heaven: Jeremiah 7 in Context Part 2

iishtdr001p1

So, this is not what I was studying. I was looking into Molech worship from the vantage point of Emperor Cult and cult prostitution in the light of this week’s Torah Portion – and then I stumbled upon this by accident. And it was way too cool not to dig into, explore and share.

“Oh Istar, merciful goddess, I have come to visit you. I have prepared for you an offering, pure milk, a pure cake baked in ashes (kamanu tumri), I stood up for you a vessel for libations, hear me and act favorably towards me.” – A hymn of Ishtar (there have been many different hymns preserved), quoted in Ackerman

What is Kamanu tumri? It is a thin unleavened loaf of fine flour baked in ashes – literally called an “ash cake” (as opposed to bread made in a formal oven, tumru bread is made on the go, in haste). In fact it is still made by Arabs to this day. (1) What is a pure cake? I believe that calling it a “pure cake” would probably be a reflection of the fact that it hasn’t had time to become leavened.

Not immediately a game changer until you look at Jeremiah 7:18

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes (kawwanim) for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. (2)

Kawwanim is a loan word derived from the Akkadian kamanu (3) and the only other place we see it in scripture is Jer 44:19

And the women said, “Indeed we will go on making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her; do you think that we made cakes for her, marked with her image, and poured out libations to her without our husbands’ being involved?” (4)

In context, Jeremiah 44 concerns the return of the Jews to the worship of the Queen of Heaven as they feel they had been cursed since abandoning her. Going back to the first quotation from the Hymn of Ishtar, the entire reason the hymnist was offering milk, cakes and wine was in order to be heard and blessed.

ishtar owl

Look at that unique phrase in Jer 44:19 – marked with her image – l’ha’asibah. The only other place we see this in scripture is when Job is speaking of being fashioned by God’s own hands in Job 10:8. So we have unleavened, thin, fine flour cakes either fashioned in the image of Ishtar or bearing her mark. Her “mark” or fashioned shape, as we know from the plentiful archaeological finds (including her entire Temple excavated in Ninevah and a great many tablets giving us an incredible wealth of knowledge about her cult – heck, we even know that her priests were cross-dressers!), would have been one of four possible things – the eight pointed star, the lion, the owl, or perhaps they were fashioned in the shape of her body in some way as she was a unique sort of fertility goddess without being a mother goddess (goddess of the storehouse and of prostitutes, go figure – kinda like having a day job and a night job).

So what would Ishtar eat? Thin, fine flour, unleavened cakes fashioned or stamped with her sign – paired with a nice glass of Chianti. (well okay, probably not Chianti)

Does this mean that unleavened bread is somehow pagan? Or wine poured out on the altar? Of course not – no more so than the meat, leavened bread, honey, salt, milk and other foods. Unleavened bread is simply bread made without waiting for the leavening process, which in ancient times was a long and complicated process.

In the end, a pagan offering requires a pagan target and pagan intent. Form and function working together for the specific purpose of drawing near to another deity. Nothing offered to pagan gods was, in and of itself, pagan – but shaping or stamping a flat unleavened cake with the image of Ishtar and then purposefuly offering it up to her? Yeah that’s pagan. Context and intent change everything – and they especially change how we read and interpret the Bible.

(1) Barrows, E. P., The Manners and Customs of the Jews: pg 99; also Luzac’s Semitic Texts and Translation Series, Vol. 15, The Devils and Evil Spirits in Babylonia, p 19

(2) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Je 7:18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(3) Ackerman, Susan, “And the Women Knead Dough: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth Century Judah” in Bach, Alice, Women in the Hebrew Bible (1999) pp 21-32

(4) The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Je 44:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

 

 




Acharei Mot in the Context of Passover: Can we sacrifice a Passover lamb in the backyard?

acharei motWedged in between the Yom Kippur commandments and the chapter that my fifteen year old twins grudgingly listen to every year (“okay mom, you don’t need to teach us this part! We get it!”) is Leviticus 17. So what exactly is wedged between these two chapters? Something equally as important – the prohibition from making offerings on a non-consecrated altar, as well as by anyone other than a priest. The penalty is karet – being cut off from the people of Israel. (Note: this is specifically concerning peace offerings, if you want to understand the transgression offerings and the reason why they cannot be offered anywhere but in the Temple, click here.)

This chapter is specifically about the shelamim, or peace offerings, which are found described in Leviticus 3. They are not a transgression/purification offering but instead a shared meal between man and God and therefore the meat must be holy. The best known example of a type of shelamim is the Passover. What we celebrate today is a memorial, very different from the Passover meal that we would be able to celebrate with a Temple standing.

Let’s go through it verse by verse, so that there is no confusion:

If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. (1)

This seems straightforward enough – in the camp in the wilderness, it was commanded that no one kill an animal within the camp or outside of it without bringing the LORD’s portion to Him. Any violations of that Law renders a man as guilty as if he had committed a murder. There were a number of reasons for this – first of all, the camp in the wilderness had a hypersensitive purity level and the shedding of the blood of a clean sacrificial animal without applying that blood to the altar was a pollution in the camp. The second reason this was a problem is because God was providing them with manna daily, as well as quail – if they in addition slaughtered a livestock animal and ate of it without offering God the best of the portions, it was a dishonor to Him. The eating of a livestock animal was a big deal in the ancient world – it was a party – and to have said party without inviting or even acknowledging the King is a problem.

But more than that, there was a third reason given in the next verse:

This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the LORD, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD (2)

God wanted a cultural change – up until that point, the Patriarchs had no central point for worship – but now here was the very presence of God in their midst, His throne within His portable (and later permanent) palace. They would no longer be wanderers, strangers in a strange wilderness – they would be a settled nation with one God, who had one Temple, and who called all of the shots. He didn’t want them slaughtering livestock for food UNLESS it was as a peace offering (what all my friends call the “barbeque offering”). This total restriction on the eating of meat having to take the form of an offering was modified when they went into the Land and God allowed them to eat meat all throughout the Land of Israel without it being a sacrifice. But that was the understanding – no meat slaughtered and eaten throughout the Land qualified as a sacrifice.

“When the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as he has promised you, and you say, ‘I will eat meat,’ because you crave meat, you may eat meat whenever you desire. If the place that the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire. (3)

The point being, of course, was that they were no longer within the precincts of the Tabernacle – imagine the poor priests, as the population grew, having to sacrifice animals whenever anyone wanted meat! That being said, throughout the history of Israel, most people generally ate meat only once a year, and that was on Passover, when it was a requirement for the native born. Otherwise, animals were far too valuable to use for the regular consumption of meat.

The next verse shows clearly that meat slaughtered outside of the Tabernacle grounds was not holy and had no restrictions, and was not holy.

Just as the gazelle or the deer is eaten, so you may eat of it. The unclean and the clean alike may eat of it. (4)

The commandment for eating hunted animals was simply that their blood be drained out on the ground and covered with dirt. Look at the next statement “the unclean and the clean alike may eat of it.” Did you know that only people who were ritually clean could eat of sacrificed animals? Once the blood touched the altar, that meat was holy and could only be eaten by people with the required level of holiness! To eat a livestock animal within the camp of the Israelites required the sanctification provided by the altar. To eat the actual Passover Lamb, by extension (the holiest offering that an average Israelite would ever consume), required that it be consecrated by the altar so that it became holy (this is also the reason that circumcision was required, it raised the holiness level of the male to the proper level, which transferred to the women in his family as well). The eating of meat in the camp was, in essence, a holy act performed in the presence of God, the Creator of all life. Every sacrifice is holy and therefore must be handled in the prescribed manner, in the prescribed place, by the prescribed people, and eaten by the prescribed people.

Back to Leviticus 17:

And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations. (5)

As we see here, the blood of any sacrifice had to be thrown or poured out at the altar, and that fat always had to be burned upon the altar. God even compares not doing this properly to whoring after goat demons. We can’t chose a place to sacrifice and then just do it, not anymore, not once there was a consecrated altar and not once there was an eternal Aaronic priesthood. Did this have an expiration date? No, it is a statute forever throughout their generations – which means it applies to us. We cannot sacrifice anywhere but at the consecrated altar, and a priest must handle the blood. To do otherwise is to be lumped in with those who sacrifice to goat demons, because when we do not do things God’s way, we are not sacrificing to Him.

I want everyone to catch that – when we don’t sacrifice according to His specific instructions, we aren’t sacrificing to Him. The original Passover was a unique act, which has never needed to be repeated. No destroying force is coming in to kill the firstborn this weekend. What we celebrate now is a memorial tribute Feast – but unlike the Feast celebrated in the days of Yeshua, the meat is not holy – it is not a true Passover lamb.

What’s the penalty for sacrificing in “our own way?”

“And you shall say to them, Any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from his people. (6)

Whoever tries to perform a sacrifice in their own way, in their own place, and who is not a priest – they will be cut off. God determined that only the Priests, descended from Aaron through Phineas and then Zadok, could perform this ritual and that has not changed. It is a perpetual ordinance and we cannot change that – there has been no dispensational change that gives us the right to consecrate our own altars (as was done in people’s front yards as part of the Imperial Cult parades) and to become priests (especially since we do not live according to the priestly restrictions, nor have we been ordained in the prescribed way) – as the book of Hebrews points out, even Yeshua didn’t have the right to be a priest on earth as He was the wrong tribe.

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law (7)

If Yeshua never personally performed a sacrifice while on earth as a priest, neither before nor after His death – are we greater than our Master? Did the disciples ever slaughter a Passover lamb as though they were priests, how about Paul? The answer is no, and nowhere do we see even a hint of them doing it. Did they keep the Passover? Of course – Yeshua even told them to eat that Passover meal in remembrance of Him. But the Passover lamb was a very holy offering, so holy that only the native-born Israelites or circumcised converts could eat of it. (Ex 12:48-49) It was a memorial of deliverance, a celebration of the mighty arm of God to save, and now also a celebration of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) deliverance of all those who call upon His Name. The sacrifice was performed at the altar, in the Temple, and only by Priests.

To offer it up ourselves, however, when there is no altar for the blood? That is strange, unauthorized worship indeed.

****************

(1)The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Le 17:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

2) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Le 17:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(3) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Dt 12:20–21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(4) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Dt 12:22). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(5) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Le 17:6–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(6) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Le 17:8–9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

(7) The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Heb 8:4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.




Metzora en Contexto: Niddah – lo que la palabra es y lo que no dice

niddah spanish

To my English readers – I have received a few complaints about the fact that there are sometimes Spanish posts. I do apologize for the inconvenience. As this is a free ministry, spending more money for another blog site (and paying someone to set it up on top of that) is not in the cards right now so I please just ignore any posts that you aren’t able to read. Thanks.

Gracias a Lisa Velazquez por traducir este articulo. Puede escucharla a traves de Teshuva.tv los Domingos a las 6pm en el programa radial: Caminando en Obediencia.

De El Puente: Cruzando Hacia la Plenitud de la Vida en Pacto, Segunda Edición

En primer lugar, no voy a decirles cómo observar ésta o cualquier otra ley – eso es su asunto. Mi propósito es abordar lo que está y lo que no está escrito, porque francamente hay una gran cantidad de conceptos erróneos por ahí. Un montón de gente se molesta por lo que ellos creen que está escrito en Levítico 15:19-24. En este momento sólo estamos hablando de un ciclo de menstruación normal aquí, y no el problema de un sangrado anormal, que es totalmente diferente y apunta a una condición médica grave.

19 Si una mujer tiene flujo, y el flujo de su cuerpo es sangre, ella estará en su estado de niddah por siete días. Cualquiera que la toque estará inmunda hasta el anochecer.

20 Todo donde ella se siente o se acueste en su estado de niddah estará inmundo.

21 Cualquiera que toque su cama lavará sus ropas y se bañará en agua; estará inmundo hasta el anochecer.

22 Cualquiera que toque cualquier cosa donde ella se siente lavará sus ropas y se bañará en agua; él estará inmundo hasta la noche.

23 Si él está en la cama o en algo donde ella se siente, cuando él lo toque, estará inmundo hasta la noche.

24 Si un hombre va a la cama con ella,(esto es de connotación sexual, no simplemente acostarse a su lado) y su menstruación lo toca, él estará inmundo por siete días; y en toda cama que él se acueste será inmunda.

Primer concepto erróneo: la impureza es un pecado. ¿Dónde dice esto? En ninguna parte; esto viene de una comprensión no-hebrea de lo que significaba acercarnos al trono físico de Dios en la tierra – a menudo enraizado a una falta de comprensión del concepto de lo que es santidad. Inmundicia es una condición que debía ser corregida antes de ir al Tabernáculo/Templo. Citaré el versículo donde lo dice más adelante. YHVH no nos creó para ser pecadores sin ninguna esperanza. Si la inmundicia fuera un pecado, entonces cualquier mujer con un marido sexualmente hiperactivo sería impura todos los días de su vida, y ¡por lo tanto en pecado! No, la impureza era simplemente algo que tenía que ser tratado, y el remedio era simple – bañarse y esperar hasta la tarde y luego uno era elegible para Metzorá en Contexto: Niddah – lo que la palabra es y lo que no dice ir al templo. No hay problema. En serio, esto no era un gran problema. En estos días y tiempos, tenemos que entender que todos estamos sujetos a una clase actualmente incurable de inmundicia – impureza por cadáver. Incluso estar en la misma habitación con un cadáver hacía a una persona impura, necesitaba ser limpiada con las cenizas de una novilla roja perfecta. [1] Tal vez usted ha visto en las noticias de vez en cuando acerca de posibles novillas rojas – es por eso que son tan buscadas. Sin la vaca roja, no podemos reconstruir el Templo, e incluso si lo hiciéramos, nadie podría aproximarse a ninguna parte cerca de él. El trono terrenal de Dios es absolutamente santo – ninguna muerte humana, contaminación o sangre pueden acercarse a él, esto es una deshonra a Su majestad.

Segundo concepto erróneo: tocar a alguien impuro, o de haber sido tocado por ellos, es un pecado. Oh, sé que la gente le gusta utilizar este verso totalmente fuera de contexto, el de 2 Corintios 6:17: “Por lo tanto, YAHWEH dice: “Salgan de en medio de ellos; apártense a sí mismos; ni siquiera toquen lo que es inmundo. Entonces Yo mismo los recibiré.” ¡Todo el contexto es la idolatría, no las funciones naturales del cuerpo! Yeshúa tocó leprosos impuros [2] y por lo tanto no pudo haber cuestión de pecado. También tocó el féretro de una persona muerta y entró en una habitación con una niña muerta, y le tocó la mano con el fin de levantarla. [3] En ninguna parte se nos prohíbe tocar los impuros. Sería terrible si nos negáramos a cuidar de nuestros seres queridos muertos. Los escritos talmúdicos hablan de sacerdotes de guardia que se tornaron impuros y luego se lavaron, dejando los terrenos del Templo hasta el anochecer. No hubo castigo, ni vergüenza adjunta – era algo que tenía que ser tratado. Negarse a ser impuro, cuando no se requería la presencia de uno en el Templo, es equivocado.

Tercer concepto erróneo: las mujeres tienen que vivir separadas durante sus períodos menstruales. Algunas personas realmente se molestan acerca de esto, pero ¿qué realmente significa “poner aparte”? Esta expresión en la versión RV es literalmente la palabra ‘niddah’ y significa separación o distanciamiento fijado en relación con la impureza. En otras palabras, la mujer menstrual tenía un estatuto especial – ella no era la misma que la del resto del mes. Sexualmente era intocable (Levítico 18:19), por lo que, en esencia, se separa. ¿Hay un mandamiento para ella de vivir en otro lugar? No. ¿Existe un mandamiento de no tocarla? No. Lo que había, era un mandamiento específico de lo que se debe hacer si la tocó o si tocaba las cosas donde ella se acostó o se sentó durante su ciclo menstrual. Es un tiempo apartado, un tiempo diferente, un tiempo para estar al tanto y era sólo un gran problema si se dirigían hacia el Templo o Tabernáculo ese día. Tocar a una persona impura se convierte en una gran complicación si usted es como mis hijos adolescentes que tienen una aversión extrema al baño.

¿Cuál fue la razón de esto? En el Antiguo Medio Oriente, la menstruación de la mujer estaba ligada a la actividad demoníaca (literalmente, como un ataque demoníaco contra la mujer). Ellos no lo veían como algo natural, pero una función innatural (de la misma manera, veían una emisión seminal nocturnal en un hombre como una señal segura de que estaba teniendo relaciones sexuales con un demonio). Se creía que tocar a una mujer en niddah pondría en riesgo a alguien. Las leyes de Dios en relación con la menstruación eran completamente diferentes – la sangre menstrual se asocia no con vida, pero con la muerte, un fracaso a la vida que no se produjo, y por lo tanto tenía que ser mantenida lejos del santuario, con Sus propias leyes, Dios eliminó el demonio de la mentalidad de los antiguos israelitas señalando que la mujer era sólo temporalmente impura, y no estaba demonizada (y, por extensión, de que el hombre con la emisión nocturnal no estaba en una tórrida relación con demonios en la noche).

Cuarto concepto erróneo: el sofá en que se sienta y su cama necesitaban limpiarse. Me han arrojado esto a la cara, “Oh, ¿tu lavas los sofás?” Dicen que esto (por lo general con cinismo) debido a que algunas versiones de la Biblia tienen una interpretación diferente de Marcos 7:4 de lo que vemos en la RV “También, cuando vienen de la plaza del mercado, no comen si no se enjuagan las manos hasta las muñecas; y se adhieren a muchas otras tradiciones, tales como lavado de copas, ollas y recipientes de bronce.” En lugar de mesa, se utiliza la palabra sofá, que es de hecho a lo que se refiere. Pero como vemos aquí, Yeshúa claramente se refiere a los mandamientos de la Torá Oral que rodean la preparación y el consumo de alimentos y no los mandamientos de la Torá. Como anteriormente se puede ver, no hay ningún mandamiento de limpiar a vapor la cama y sillones.

Quinto concepto erróneo: hombres y mujeres sólo están en riesgo de ser impuros durante el estado niddah. Anteriormente, vimos esto en el mismo capítulo en los versículos 16-18.

16 “‘Si un hombre tiene una emisión de semen, tiene que bañar su cuerpo completo en agua; él estará inmundo hasta la noche.

17 Cualquier ropa o piel donde haya semen será lavado con agua; estará inmundo hasta el anochecer.

18 Si un hombre va a la cama con una mujer y tiene relaciones sexuales, ambos se bañarán en agua; ellos estarán inmundos hasta el anochecer'”

¡Así es, el sexo normal de cada día te hace impuro, así, con el mismo remedio exacto! Dios no nos manda que seamos fecundos y nos multipliquemos si fuera Su deseo que estemos ritualmente limpios 24/7. Impureza ritual no es un problema, excepto en circunstancias especiales – como ir al Templo, ir a las Fiestas, ofrecer sacrificios o para servir, o cuando uno está a punto de ir la batalla en el Nombre de YHVH, como vemos en Josué.

Niddah se trata de la conciencia, no se trata de esquivar. Niddah nos enseña cuándo podemos y cuándo no podemos entrar al Templo, y qué medidas se deben tomar con el fin de estar ritualmente limpios de nuevo. Pecado sería ir hasta el Templo en un estado impuro, y como todo el mundo sabía lo que hacía falta para ser impuro, esto se evitaba fácilmente. Aquí está el verso específico que lo resume todo, Levítico 15:31:

De esta forma ustedes separarán a los hijos de Israel de su inmundicia, para que ellos no mueran en un estado de inmundicia por profanar Mi Tabernáculo el cual está allí con ellos.

Ahí lo tienes – ¡no vayas al Templo si estas impuro! ¿Recuerda cuando Uza murió después de tocar el arca de Dios? [4] Su nivel de santidad no era lo suficientemente alto (su nivel de contaminación de la vida cotidiana normal era demasiado alto, que no debe confundirse con el pecado) y la santidad de Dios lo mató. En Éxodo 19, Dios advierte en varias ocasiones al pueblo a permanecer distanciados de la montaña, incluso a los sacerdotes, porque su nivel de santidad no estaba todavía lo suficientemente alto.

En cuanto al requisito del lavado, ¿quién no quiere bañarse? (quiero decir, además de nuestros hijos una vez que pasan su etapa de burbujas y chorreos) Inmundicia se reduce a una cosa simple, una inhabilitación temporal para ir al Templo. No debemos olvidar que el Templo era el trono de Dios en la Tierra, y al igual que nunca irrumpiríamos en el Palacio de Buckingham sucios y vestidos “ordinariamente” sin duda le debemos mucho más respeto al Rey de reyes que a la Reina de Inglaterra.

Y hay que recordar que en la antigüedad (así como en la actualidad), no tener el debido cuidado de la sangre era un problema de salud para todos. Francamente, en la antigüedad la menstruación de uno habría sido toda una odisea. ¡Estoy muy contenta de que estamos vivos ahora, cuando es mucho más fácil! Qué terrible si Dios hubiera tenido tan poca compasión como para requerir la presencia de una mujer, como lo hizo con los hombres, en el Templo, sin importa qué.

Casi la totalidad de los conceptos erróneos acerca de esta Ley tienen que ver con lo que la gente escucha acerca de cómo los judíos ortodoxos hacen las cosas, la separación durante catorce días, camas separadas, etc., pero, una vez más, lea lo que dice la Biblia y no dice, y la verdad nos hará libres. Mantener esta Ley según el Talmud puede ser muy desmoralizante para las mujeres que no han sido criadas de esta manera, lo que hace un momento difícil del mes mucho peor de lo que tiene que ser, especialmente cuando todavía no poseen la mentalidad y las actitudes culturales de los judíos.

[1] Números 19:14

[2] Mateo 8:3

[3] Lucas 7:11-15; Lucas 8:49-55

[4] 2 Samuel 6




Metzora in Context: Niddah – what the Word does and does not say

For this week’s Torah portion I am cutting and pasting a chapter from The Bridge: Crossing Over Into the Fullness of Covenant Life, Second Edition

First of all, I am not going to tell you how to observe this or any other Law – that’s your business.  My entire purpose is to address what is and is not written because frankly there are a lot of misconceptions out there.  A whole lot of folks get upset because of what they think is written in Leviticus 15:19-24.  Right now we are only talking about a normal menstruation cycle here, and not the issue of abnormal bleeding, which is entirely different and points to a serious medical condition.

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

 And if any man lie with her at all (this is sexual, not simply laying next to someone), and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

First misconception: uncleanness is a sin.  Where does it say this?  Nowhere; this comes from a non-Hebraic understanding of what it meant to approach God’s physical throne on earth–often rooted in a lack of understanding of the concept of holiness.  Uncleanness is a ritual condition that must be remedied before one goes to the Tabernacle/Temple.  I will give the verse telling why a bit later.  YHVH did not create us to be sinful without any hope.  If uncleanness were a sin, then any woman with a sexually overactive husband would be ritually unclean every day of her life, and therefore in sin!  No, uncleanness was simply something that had to be dealt with, and the remedy was simple–ritually bathe and wait until evening, and then one was eligible to go to the Temple. No biggie.  Seriously, this wasn’t a big deal. In this day and age, we have to understand that we are all subject to a currently incurable brand of uncleanness–corpse impurity. Even being in the same room with a corpse makes a person unclean (Lev 19:12), needing to be cleansed with the ashes of a perfect red heifer.[1] Perhaps you have seen in the news stories every now and then about possible red heifers–this is why they are so dearly sought after. Without the red heifer, there are serious impediments to rebuilding and especially using the Temple. God’s earthly throne is absolutely holy–no human death, defilement, or blood can come near to it or it is a dishonor to His majesty.

Second misconception: touching someone unclean, or being touched by them, is a sin.  Oh I know people like to use this verse entirely out of context, from II Corinthians 6:17 “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”  The entire context of that was idolatry, not natural body functions! Yeshua touched unclean lepers[2] and so there could be no question of sinfulness.  He also touched the bier of a dead person and went into a room with a dead girl, and touched her hand in order to raise her up.[3] Nowhere are we forbidden to touch the unclean.  It would be a terrible thing if we refused to care for our dead loved ones. Talmudic writings speak of on-duty priests becoming unclean and then going to wash, leaving the Temple grounds until nightfall. There was no punishment, no shame attached–it was just something that had to be dealt with. To refuse to become unclean, when one’s presence isn’t required at the Temple, is misguided.

Third misconception: women have to live separately during their periods.  Some folks really get upset about this one, but what does ‘put apart’ mean?  Put apart in the KJV is literally the word ‘niddah’ and it means separation or set-apartness related to uncleanness.  In other words, the menstrual woman had a special status–she was not the same as she was the rest of the month. Sexually she was untouchable (Lev 18:19), and so, in essence, she was separated.  Was there a commandment for her to live elsewhere?  No.  Was there a commandment not to touch her?  No. What there was, was a specific commandment of what to do if you did touch her or the things she laid or sat on during her cycle.  It is a set apart time, a different time, a time to be aware and was only a big deal if you were heading over to the Temple or Tabernacle that day. Touching an unclean person is only a big hairy deal if you are like my teenage sons and have an extreme aversion to bathing.

What was the reason for this? In the Ancient Near East, a woman’s menstruation was suspected to be tied to demonic activity (literally, as a demonic attack against the woman). They didn’t see it as a natural, but an unnatural function (in the same way, they saw a nocturnal seminal emission in a man as a sure sign that he was having sexual relations with a demon). It was believed that touching a woman in Niddah would put someone at risk. God’s laws concerning menstruation were completely different–menstrual blood is associated not with life but with death, a failure for life to occur, and therefore had to be kept away from the sanctuary, With His own laws, God eliminated the demonic from the minds of the ancient Israelites and showed that the woman was only temporarily ritually unclean, not demonized (and by extension, that the man with the nocturnal emission wasn’t carrying on a torrid affair with demons in the night).

Fourth misconception: the couch she sits on and her bed need to be cleaned.  I’ve had this one thrown in my face, “Oh yeah, do you wash the couches?”  They say this (generally with a smirk) because some versions of the Bible have a different rendering of Mark 7:4 than we see in the KJV “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.”  Instead of table, the word couch is used, which it indeed can mean.  But as we see here, Yeshua is clearly referring to the Oral Torah commandments (found in tractate Kellim of the Mishnah) dealing with the eating of food and not actual Torah commandments.  As you see from above, no, there is no commandment to steam clean the bed and couches.

Fifth misconception: men and women are only at risk of being unclean during niddah. Earlier in the same chapter, we see this in verses 16-18.

And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.

And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

That’s right, normal everyday sex makes you unclean as well, with the exact same remedy!  God would not command us to be fruitful and multiply if it were His desire for us to be ritually clean 24/7.  Ritual uncleanness is never a problem except for special circumstances–like going up to the Temple for the Feasts or sacrifices or to serve, or when one is about to do battle in the Name of YHVH, as we see in Joshua.

Niddah is about awareness, not about shunning.  Niddah teaches us when to and not to come into the Temple, and what steps have to be taken in order to be ritually clean again.  Sin would be going up to the Temple in an unclean state, and because everyone knew what it took to make one unclean, this was easily avoided.  Here is the specific verse that sums it all up.

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

There you have it–don’t go to the Temple unclean!  Remember when Uzzah died after touching the Ark of God?[4] His level of holiness wasn’t high enough (his level of defilement from normal everyday life was too high, not to be confused with sin) and God’s holiness killed him. In Exodus 19, God repeatedly warns the people to stay back from the mountain, even the priests, because their holiness level was not yet high enough.

As for the bathing requirement, who doesn’t want to bathe (I mean, besides our kids once they get too old for bubbles and splashing)? Uncleanness boils down to one simple thing, a temporary disqualification from going to the Temple. We must never forget that the Temple was the throne of God on Earth, and just as we would never barge into Buckingham Palace filthy and dressed ‘however’ we would certainly owe far more respect to the King of kings than the Queen of England.

And we must remember that during ancient times (as well as today), not having blood properly taken care of was a health concern to everyone.   Frankly, in ancient times one’s menstruation would have been quite an ordeal. I am so glad we are alive now when it is much easier! How terrible if God had had so little compassion as to require a woman’s presence, as He did with the males, at the Temple, no matter what.

Almost all of the misconceptions about this Law are related to what people hear about how the Orthodox Jews do things, separation for fourteen days, separate beds, etc. but once again, read what the Bible does and does not say, and the truth shall set you free.  Keeping this Law according to Orthodox standards can be extremely demoralizing for women who were not raised this way, making a difficult time of the month far worse than it has to be, especially when one does not already possess the mindsets and cultural attitudes of the Jews.

[1] Num 19:14

[2] Matt 8:3

[3]  Luke 7:11-15; Luke 8:49-55

[4] 2 Sam 6